alfs messaging (IPC)

Bryan Dumm bdumm at
Fri Feb 16 00:41:43 PST 2001

>   I was thinking in the framework of sometimes the frontend and backend
> might not be on the same machine.  If they are always togeather, then it
> doesn't make any sense of what i was talking about.
>   The underlying protcol (tcp) has it's own built in checksums and all
> that, but the alfs system doesn't know about that.  I mean, what if
> behavior like what happens with my NAT machine at home happens. (the
> behavior is that select http conections seem not to work compleatly i.e. i
> can't view certain web sites)  Sure, this is probably a
> (minor)misconfiguration somewhere, but it sure would be a show stopper with
> alfs.
>   So, basicly the checksum, or simple msg id checking would be another
> layer at the app level, and a further check against loss on the network
> that might not get taken care of.  Now that i'm thinking of this again,
> 'simple msg ID checking' seems reasonable enough as a message can still be
> interpretted if one character of it is mangled.

Right or just thrown away even. I can imagine not getting responses 
from the backend being just like how a website is "not there"......
And user responses being similiar.

Not sure if we need this additional checksum on our messages....


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list